Re: Draft [URL] reference update to informative text

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> As a concrete example: as near as I can tell, the following hasn't had wide
> review, and therefore I suggest that implementers would want to consider
> carefully before they chose to implement it:
>
> http://intertwingly.net/stories/2014/10/05/urltest-results/4b60e32190

It seems you did not test on Windows. Are you suggesting we make URL
parsing dependent on OS? But yes, around file URLs there's a few small
things (not this test) that could be done better. The URL Standard has
open bugs pointing these out.


> I also don't think "all those tests are likely wrong" is a fair conclusion.

Fair. Some appear correct.


-- 
https://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Thursday, 9 October 2014 16:13:16 UTC